Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Varouxakis, Georgios
2009.
British International Thinkers from Hobbes to Namier.
p.
117.
Article contents
Nineteenth-Century Perceptions of John Austin: Utilitarianism and the Reviews of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 January 2009
Extract
In 1954 H. L. A. Hart wrote that Austin's work has ‘never, since his death … been ignored’. If it never has been completely ignored, interest in it has periodically waxed and waned. The interest definitely waxed in the 1980s. More books were published about Austin in this period than in any other decade since his death in 1859. Although this literature contains discussions of some of the nineteenth-century responses to his work, they are not the focus of it. Certain of the responses remain completely in the dark, while there is more light to shed on at least some of the others. In short, our knowledge of nineteenth-century interpretations of Austin's legal philosophy is very incomplete.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991
References
1 Austin, John, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, London, 1954Google Scholar, [hereinafter cited as PJD (1954),] p. xviii.Google Scholar
2 See Morison, W. L., John Austin, Stanford, Ca., 1982Google Scholar; Lotte, and Hamburger, Joseph, Troubled Lives: John and Sarah Austin, Toronto, 1985Google Scholar; Rumble, Wilfrid E., The Thought of John Austin: Jurisprudence, Colonial Reform, and the British Constitution, London, 1985Google Scholar; and Moles, Robert N., Definition and Rule in Legal Theory: A Reassessment of H. L. A. Hart and the Positivist Tradition, Oxford, 1987.Google Scholar
3 See Sykes, John G. W., ‘II.—Jurisprudence: A Review’, Law Magazine and Review, iv (1875), 491–2Google Scholar; Dicey, Albert V., ‘The Study of Jurisprudence’, Law Magazine and Review, v (1880), 386Google Scholar; Clark, E. C., Practical Jurisprudence: A Comment on Austin, Cambridge, 1883, pp. 4–5Google Scholar; and Hastie, W., Outlines of the Science of Jurisprudence: An Introduction to the Systematic Study of Law, Edinburgh, 1887, pp. xiv–xv.Google Scholar
4 It is quite possible that there are more reviews of the PJD than I have been able to locate. There is no truly comprehensive index to legal periodicals for the period of time encompassed by this study. Jones, Leonard Augustus et al. , An Index to Legal Periodical Literature (1789–1922), 4 vols., Boston, Mass. 1888–1924Google Scholar is quite incomplete. The same is true of Poole, William Frederick, Poole's Index to Periodical Literature, 1802–1906, New York, 1938Google Scholar. Raymond Cocks's discussion of nineteenth-century periodical literature was very helpful to me in locating reviews of the PJD. See Cocks, note 12 below, at 236–7. At least seven journals, periodicals, or newspapers published reviews of, or essays about, the first edition of the PJD, London, 1832Google Scholar. See The Legal Observer, iii (1832), 416–18Google Scholar, and ibid., iv (1832), 36–9: ‘Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence’, in Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, ed. Robson, John M., Toronto, 1984Google Scholar, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, xxi. 51–60Google Scholar; The Jurist, iii (1832), 105–22Google Scholar; The Times, 9 08 1832Google Scholar; Law Magazine and Review, vii (1832), 298–313Google Scholar; Westminster Review, xviii (1833), 237–49Google Scholar; and The Adventurer; or London University Magazine, ii (1833), 137–43Google Scholar. For reviews of the second edition of the PJD, see London Quarterly Review, cx (1861), 60, 72–3Google Scholar; [Stephen, James Fitzjames,] Edinburgh Review, cxxxix (1861), 233–49Google Scholar; The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter, v (1861), 458–60Google Scholar; Law Magazine and Review, xi (1861), 234–47Google Scholar; The Athenaeum (4 05 1861), 592–3Google Scholar; The Law Times (1861), pp. 306, 452Google Scholar; and North American Review, c (1865), 246–53Google Scholar. All of these reviews were unsigned.
5 See PJD, 2nd ed., London, 1861, pp. iv, xv.Google Scholar
6 Law Magazine and Review, viii (1832), 534–5.Google Scholar
7 Lectures on Jurisprudence on the Philosophy of Positive Law, 2 vols., 5th edn., London, 1885, p. 10Google Scholar. For reviews of the 1863 edition of this work, see North American Review, c (1865), 246–53Google Scholar; The Solicitors‘Journal and Reporter, vii (1863), 864–5, 877–8Google Scholar; The Law Times, xxix (1863), 92–3Google Scholar; The Westminister Review, lxxxii (1864), 125–32Google Scholar; Journal of Jurisprudence, vii (1863), 514–28Google Scholar; Law Magazine and Review, xvii (1864), 115–37Google Scholar; and ‘Austin on Jurisprudence’, in Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, CW, xxi. 165–205.Google Scholar
8 For some examples, see SirMaine, Henry Sumner, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions, 7th ed., 1914, p. 368Google Scholar; Bryce, James, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, London, 1901, p. 613Google Scholar; Brown, W. Jethro, The Austinian Theory of Law, London, 1906Google Scholar; Eastwood, R. A. and Keeton, G. W., The Austinian Theories of Law and Sovereignty, London, 1929Google Scholar; Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, Oxford, 1961Google Scholar; Stone, Julius, Legal System and Lawyers' Reasonings, Stanford, p. 86Google Scholar; and Friedmann, W., Legal Theory, 5th ed., New York, 1967, p. 258Google Scholar. For an interpretation of Austin which strongly emphasizes the links between his utilitarianism and his legal philosophy, see Rumble, , The Thought of John Austin, pp. 60–108Google Scholar. I was not aware when I wrote this book, however, of the very great stress of the reviews of the PJD (1832)Google Scholar on Austin's utilitarianism.
9 Maine, , Lectures on the Early History of Institutions, pp. 369–70.Google Scholar
10 See Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law.Google Scholar
11 North American Review, c (1865), 251Google Scholar. Another reviewer also pointed out that Austin, 's ‘discussion of the theory of utility … fills too large a space for the symmetry and compactness of the book’ (London Quarterly Review, cx [1861], 72).Google Scholar
12 Cocks, Raymond, Foundations of the Modern Bar, London, 1983, p. 49.Google Scholar
13 Law Magazine and Review, vii (1832), 301–2.Google Scholar
14 The Jurist, iii (1832), 114.Google Scholar
15 The Times, 9 08 1832.Google Scholar
16 Mill, note 4 above, at 57.
17 See the article cited, note 45 below.
18 The Law Magazine and Review, vii (1832), 302–12.Google Scholar
19 The Jurist, iii (1832), 112–18.Google Scholar
20 The Legal Observer, iii (1832), 416–18.Google Scholar
21 See Maine, , Lectures on the Early History of InstitutionsGoogle Scholar; Harrison, Frederic, ‘The English School of Jurisprudence. Part I.—Austin and Maine on Sovereignty’, The Fortnightly Review, xxiv (1878), 479Google Scholar; and Bryce, James, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, pp. 613–14Google Scholar. Even Sir William Markby, who was very sympathetic to many of Austin's ideas, criticized his discussion of the principle of utility. See Markby, , ‘Analytical Jurisprudence’, The Law Magazine and Review, i (1876), 624.Google Scholar
22 See note 18 above, at p. 300.
23 See PJD (1832), p. xx.Google Scholar
24 Ibid., pp. xix–xx.
25 See Hart, note 1 above.
26 For examples, see Frederic Harrison, ibid., pp. 432–3; Dicey, A. V., ‘The Study of Jurisprudence’, Law Magazine and Review, v (1880), 388–9; and Frederick Pollock, Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics, London, 1882, p. 2.Google Scholar
27 PJD (1832), p. xx.Google Scholar
28 Ibid., pp. vii–viii.
29 Ibid., p. xi.
30 Ibid., p. xiii.
31 Ibid., p. xiv.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., p. xiv.
35 Lectures on Jurisprudence (1885), p. 16.Google Scholar
36 Ibid.
37 Schneewind, J. B., Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy, Oxford, 1977, p. 153Google Scholar. My exposition of Austin's rule utilitarianism draws upon my previous discussion of it in The Thought of John Austin, pp. 67–9.Google Scholar
38 PJD (1832), p. 47.Google Scholar
39 Ibid., 49.
40 Ibid., 37.
41 Ibid., 47.
42 See Lectures on Jurisprudence (1885), pp. 109, 114, 116, 117.Google Scholar
43 Smart, J. J. C., ‘Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism’, in Contemporary Utilitarianism, ed. Bayles, Michael D., Garden City, N.Y., 1968, p. 107.Google Scholar
44 PJD (1832), pp. 53–4.Google Scholar
45 See ‘A Note on Austin's “Province of Jurisprudence Determined”’, The Adventurer; or London University Magazine, ii (1833), 137Google Scholar. Ms Gillian M. Furlong, Archivist, the Library, University College London, was instrumental in locating this article for me.
46 PJD (1832), 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid., 298n.
49 Ibid. It is problematic whether Hobbes actually held the views that Austin attributed to him. See Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil, ed. Oakeshott, Michael, New York, 1962, pp. 110, 163–5.Google Scholar
50 PJD (1832), 54–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51 See Bentham, Jeremy, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, ed. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A., London, 1977Google Scholar (The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham), pp. 55–7, 483–4, 487, 491–2.Google Scholar
52 PJD (1832), 55Google Scholar. Austin did unequivocally reject the doctrine of tyrannicide as ‘highly pernicious’ (Lectures on Jurisprudence (1885), 161)Google Scholar. His rejection of it was not included, however, in the first edition of the PJD (1832).Google Scholar
53 PJD (1832), 60.Google Scholar
54 ‘A Note on Austin's “Province of Jurisprudence Determined”’, The Adventurer; or London University Magazine, ii (1833)Google Scholar, [hereinafter cited as ‘A Note’,] 137–43.Google Scholar
55 Ibid., 139.
56 PJD (1832), 38.Google Scholar
57 ‘A Note’, 139.Google Scholar
58 Ibid., 140.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid., 142.
61 For an interesting brief criticism of the theories of resistance expressed by both Austin and ‘A Note’, see the Westminster Review, xviii (1833), 329–32Google Scholar. According to Colonel Thomas Perronet Thompson, ‘resistance to bad government is the moral duty, whenever the probable advantages of success are greater than the probable suffering from opposition. It is in fact the case of resistance to any kind of robbery and mischief’ (ibid., 332).
62 See, for example, Law Magazine and Review, x (1861), 241–2Google Scholar, and The Athenaeum, 4 05 1861, p. 593.Google Scholar
63 See Bentham, Jeremy, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ed. Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A., London, 1970Google Scholar (CW, pp. 31–2Google Scholar, and Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism with Critical Essays, ed. Gorovitz, Samuel, Indianapolis, Ind., 1971, pp. 27–8Google Scholar. It was Mill's opinion that the principle of utility was, for Austin, the ultimate ethical measure or test. The impression to the contrary was a ‘mere appearance’ (Mill, ibid., note 7 above, p. 177). Mill was able to cite one passage from Austin's book in support of this interpretation. See PJD (1832), 134nGoogle Scholar. Still, Austin tended to characterize utility as an index to the divine will, which is the ultimate standard.
64 PJD (1832), p. 32.Google Scholar
66 Ibid., p. 41.
66 Ibid., p. 36.
67 The Solicitors' Journal and Reporter, v (1861), 459.Google Scholar
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid., 460.
71 Ibid., 459–60.
72 PJD (1832), 63.Google Scholar
73 For discussion of Austin's religious views, see Lotte, and Hamburger, Joseph, Troubled Lives, pp. 41–2, 170–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rumble, , The Thought of John Austin, p. 234, 26nGoogle Scholar; and Orth, John V., ‘Casting the Priests Out of the Temple: John Austin and the Relation between Law and Religion’, in The Weightier Matters of the Law: Essays in Law and Religion—A Tribute to Harold J. Berman, ed. John Witte, Jr., and Frank S. Alexander, 1988, pp. 230–49.Google Scholar
74 Statement by the Council of the University of London, London, 1827, p. 8.Google Scholar
75 For justification of these policies, see ibid., pp. 12–13. For criticisms of them, see, inter alia, Quarterly Review, xxxiii (1825–1826), 257–75Google Scholar; Quarterly Review, xxxix (1829), 126–35Google Scholar; Christianus, , A Letter to the Rt. Hon. Robert Peel, on the Subject of London University, London, 1828Google Scholar Rev. Newland, Henry, Thoughts on the London University, Dublin, 1828Google Scholar; and ‘Modern Systems of Instruction’, British Critic, i (1827), 190–211Google Scholar. For discussion of both the policies of the University and the criticisms of them, see Bellot, H. Hale, University College London: 1826–1926, London, 1929.Google Scholar
76 As quoted by Harte, Negley, The University of London 1836–1986: An Illustrated History, London, 1986, p. 64.Google Scholar
77 Lancaster, T. W., The Alliance of Education and Civil Government: with Strictures on the University of London, London, 1828Google Scholar, [hereinafter cited as The Alliance,] p. 75.Google Scholar
78 Ibid., pp. 10, 12.
79 Ibid., p. 80.
80 ‘Jurisprudence’, in Second Statement by the Council of the University of London Explanatory of the Plan of Instruction, London, 1828, p. 93.Google Scholar
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 Lancaster, , The Alliance, p. 74.Google Scholar
84 Ibid., p. 75.
85 Ibid.
86 The Times, 9 08 1832 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
87 For Paley's ideas, see The Works of William Paley, D, D., London, 1837, vols. 1 and 2.Google Scholar, and LeMahieu, D. L., The Mind of William Paley: A Philosopher and His Age, Lincoln, Neb., 1976.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by